Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In the latest blow to the N.F.L.'s defense of the Redskins as a team name, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, part of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, canceled the trademark registration of the name Redskins for use in connection with a professional football team, saying that “a substantial composite of Native Americans found the term Redskins to be disparaging.”

But if the decision is upheld on appeal, a process that could take years, others will be free to use the name and the team logo on clothing and other gear, which could lead to more Redskins merchandise on the market, not less.

The decision came in a heavily footnoted 81-page opinion, accompanied by an 18-page dissent. It was similar to one issued in 1999 that was overturned four years later on appeal, largely because the courts decided that the plaintiffs were too old.

How about keeping the logo and renaming the team the "Washington Aboriginals" or "Washington Indigenous Persons"

Has anyone complained about the Florida Seminoles? I know the Braves, Indians, and Chiefs have to be on the list. BTW, as Catholic of Mexican/Spanish heritage, I will be filing a class action lawsuit against the San Diego MLB franchise for their disrespectful use of a Franciscan Friar for their mascot and team name.

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD

Being a local, I remember in teh 1960's and even into the late 1970's that busloads of American Indians would come to DC to watch the 'Skin's play. Not so much now, with the Skin's sucking like a shop-vac. The real issue is that Snyder isn't liberal, so he's being targeted by the current POS Administration.

"Redskins" is a derogatory name. Period. It is a derogatory description of the indigenous peoples who inhabited almost the entirety of North America before being tragically and brutally slaughtered like sheep by our ancestors, who then worked for hundreds of years to scam and cheat them out of the land they had rightfully negotiated for themselves when they realized the onslaught could not be stopped.

The tale of the American aboriginals is a tragic one in every sense of the word. I'm interested to know why most of you seem to think this is not a reasonable request. I see absolutely no reason why a few decades of sporting tradition could or should not accommodate the legacy of hundreds of years of obscene persecution and discrimination.

Originally Posted by BadKosh

Being a local, I remember in teh 1960's and even into the late 1970's that busloads of American Indians would come to DC to watch the 'Skin's play.

If you're old enough, you might also remember black people willingly and voluntarily going to the back of the bus, or perhaps giving up their seat because they were black and a white person was standing?

"Redskins" is a derogatory name. Period. It is a derogatory description of the indigenous peoples who inhabited almost the entirety of North America before being tragically and brutally slaughtered like sheep by our ancestors, who then worked for hundreds of years to scam and cheat them out of the land they had rightfully negotiated for themselves when they realized the onslaught could not be stopped.

The tale of the American aboriginals is a tragic one in every sense of the word. I'm interested to know why most of you seem to think this is not a reasonable request. I see absolutely no reason why a few decades of sporting tradition could or should not accommodate the legacy of hundreds of years of obscene persecution and discrimination.

If you're old enough, you might also remember black people willingly and voluntarily going to the back of the bus, or perhaps giving up their seat because they were black and a white person was standing?

Times change. We must, too.

I too am shocked by the lackadaisical responses. Chiefs? Indians? Those are in no way the same as "Redskins". I was gonna type up a long response today, but you hit the nail on the head with all the points I wanted to make.

WHY must we change? Change for change sake is an asshole move. ( see current events)

I have never heard of american indians called "redskins" ever.
Not in old cartoons, or 1930's era western movies.
I have only heard it associated with DC's football team.

The team originated as the Boston Braves, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1932. At the time the team played in Braves Field, home of the Boston Braves baseball team. The following year the club moved to Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, whereupon owners changed the team's name to the Boston Redskins. The Redskins relocated to Washington, D.C. in 1937. So, were the owners racist in Beantown? Huh!

Has anyone complained about the Florida Seminoles? I know the Braves, Indians, and Chiefs have to be on the list.

The difference with the Florida State Seminoles is that they are named after a specific tribe of that region. The university has specifically told the media to not refer to the Osceola and Renegeade (the portrayal of a 19th century Seminole leader and his Appaloosa horse at home games) as a mascot. Officially, the university refers to the symbolism, nicknames, and imagery of Seminole heritage. The Seminole Tribe of Florida officially and fully sanctions the use of Osceola, the nickname, and imagery.

The Braves used to have a "Screaming Indian" logo:
This logo has been banned from use in their practice jerseys and any material associated with the team.

The Cleveland Indians have also marginalized their Wahoo logo.

The short of it is, if you can't see the juxtaposition between the names like Braves, Seminoles, Padres(???) and the Redskins, well that is just sad.

There can be proper ways of honoring a heritage and Redskins just is not one of them.

I'm of two minds on the matter. On an initial gut-check, the name registers as a zero, mostly because I've never been exposed to indian racism, in fiction or real-life. On an intellectual level, I can understand why this would make people angry.

I've tried to empathize, but unfortunately my attempts have been less than successful. Would I object to a team being called the Washington Dagos? Unfortunately it sounds more like a joke than offensive. I think the only time I've heard the term used was on SNL. No one uses that slur seriously, in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by subego

I never really understood the complaints against the team names. Mascots I can understand.

I'm sympathetic to this point of view. Mascot's tend to be caricatures, and coupling that with a previous slur is bad juju.

Originally Posted by sek929

The amount of people who actually care about the Redskins name is minuscule, the media however....

To be fair, the amount of native-americans left is minuscule, too.

Originally Posted by subego

When it comes right down to it, whatever poor connotations the term "redskins" may have once held, male, American children grow up associating the name with hyper-masculinized ass-kickers.

I think I'd just say "football team" over the italicized, but I'm sympathetic to this as well. But does ignorance to the basis of a term clear it of its racist roots? I don't think most people know the term gypped is offensive and racist towards Roma, and I'm easily capable of dropping the term without even realizing, but I think our own Shaddim isn't fond of the term for those reasons.

Originally Posted by sek929

As an Irishman named Kennedy I find Notre Dame's "Fighting Irish" stereotype to be offensive. I'm also no fun at parties.

Well, Irish isn't a slur. I had to google an Irish slur because I'm such an innocent flower, but what if they were the Fightin' Micks?

(It registers at like a 2 for me on the outrage meter, but having heard that thrown around a few times in fiction, I'd be more understanding if irish people objected).

---

I mean, in some ways I feel like we should preserve the name to show where we came from and how things were, but I just don't think that's reasonable. We all seem to agree the term Redskin was a slur, the disagreement seems to surround whether its really current or a relic of a bygone era, and secondly "how offensive is it really?" On the second point, I think it requires a certain amount of arrogance for us to judge, as most or all of use aren't of native american descent. Another question is, should we change the name if only a small amount of people are offended? I think that again requires a certain amount of arrogance because it implies that it's okay to be offensive, so long as you're not offending a large amount of people. And when you consider the history of treatment we have towards those people...

Well, I just can't object to changing the name, regardless of any personal feelings or lack thereof. And I certainly can't object to the reasoning of the trademark office and I don't think anyone else has here either. So in this case, perhaps the right thing will be done, in the end, for financial reasons (not a boycott, but to help limit merchandising rights).

There exists a whole, wide world outside of your own limited experiences.

a handful of movies, say it ain't so? I have more than a little NA blood (my maternal great grandmother was full OK Cherokee) and I still find this absurd. Our hypersensitivity toward anything that can be taken as a racial slur, and played to the hilt by those who want to sensationalize anything, has reached an all-time high (or low, depending on perspective).

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

a handful of movies, say it ain't so? I have more than a little NA blood (my maternal great grandmother was full OK Cherokee) and I still find this absurd. Our hypersensitivity toward anything that can be taken as a racial slur, and played to the hilt by those who want to sensationalize anything, has reached an all-time high (or low, depending on perspective).

If you think that is the full list, you're misguided. It is a sample that took about 4 minutes to put together. There's far more dude. There is zero reason to be so silly.

You don't care. Neat. There are many who do and have cared for years. This is not new. What is with this selfish attitude? Would you call your great grandmother a redskin to her face? Do you think she would care? Please share any discussion you may have had with her. I think a perspective from a full OK Cherokee would be beneficial, especially from that generation.

The way I look at it is: who would walk up to a black man and call him a ****** or jiggaboo? Who would walk up to an Asian man and call him a chink? Who would walk up to a Jewish person and call him a kike? Who would walk up to a Latino and call him a spic? Who would walk up to an Italian and call him a dago? Who would walk up to a white Southerner and call him a cracker? Who would walk up to a Native American and call him a redskin? Any reasonable person wouldn't say any of those things because one knows it is wrong.

Why is redskin different? They are not going after Brave or even Indian. This isn't about

Originally Posted by Shaddim

anything that can be taken as a racial slur

This is about redskin. From where is this nonchalant attitude toward how a group of people feel about this particular word coming?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I mean, in some ways I feel like we should preserve the name to show where we came from and how things were, but I just don't think that's reasonable. We all seem to agree the term Redskin was a slur, the disagreement seems to surround whether its really current or a relic of a bygone era, and secondly "how offensive is it really?" On the second point, I think it requires a certain amount of arrogance for us to judge, as most or all of use aren't of native american descent. Another question is, should we change the name if only a small amount of people are offended? I think that again requires a certain amount of arrogance because it implies that it's okay to be offensive, so long as you're not offending a large amount of people. And when you consider the history of treatment we have towards those people...

This is the most mature and well-reasoned way of explaining how I feel about this. I wish I could have written something as succinct and to the point.

If you think that is the full list, you're ignorant. It is a sample that took about 4 minutes to put together. There's far more dude. Stop being silly.

You don't care. Neat. There are many who do and have cared for years. This is not new. What is with this selfish attitude? Would you call your great grandmother a redskin to her face? Do you think she would care? Did you ever discuss this sort of situation with her?

Who would walk up to a black man and call him a ****** or jiggaboo? Who would walk up to an Asian man and call him a chink? Who would walk up to a Jewish person and call him a kike? Who would walk up to a Latino and call him a spic? Who would walk up to a Native American and call them a redskin?

Why is redskin different? They are not going after Brave or even Indian. This isn't about "anything that can be taken as a racial slur". This is about redskin. From where is this nonchalant attitude toward how a group of people feel about this particular word coming?

All of those racial epithets are more inflammatory than "redskin", way to draw false equivalence, Francis. Your outrage is only outpaced by your need to villainize whatever is the Left's target du jour. They manufacture more angst and outrage than any other group in the history of this country, and they do it so they can make a show of how they "feel your pain"... even if you didn't know you had any pain to start with. My Gr-grandmother would have laughed about this, she had too many other things to take up her time and attention, like being one of the first women to ever be issued a pilot's license and being the first NA woman in her state to graduate from medical school. IOW, important things, unlike worrying about a sports team name that was actually quite popular with NA people for a long time... until others decided it was offensive (in an attempt to curry favor with them) and made an issue out of it.

You want to piss off a "redskin", call them an Indian. That'll get their hackles up much faster than a reference to skin tone.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

Your outrage is only outpaced by your need to villainize whatever is the Left's target du jour.

It seems clear that it is impossible for you to grasp that I do not view the world in Left, Right, Middle, Bottom, war between these factions, a soapbox du jour. It seems clear that it is impossible for you to think a person can look at a position, stance and come to a moral conclusion based on how I believe humans should treat other humans. It seems clear that it is impossible for you to understand that empathy can be legitimate. There is nothing that can be done for that.

I think I'd just say "football team" over the italicized, but I'm sympathetic to this as well. But does ignorance to the basis of a term clear it of its racist roots? I don't think most people know the term gypped is offensive and racist towards Roma, and I'm easily capable of dropping the term without even realizing, but I think our own Shaddim isn't fond of the term for those reasons.

No, but the context matters. 40 years is plenty of time for a word to change meaning, and I posit the word is now related to the football team.

A team where each and every member is a hyper-masculinized ass-kicker.

As I mentioned in my post, is there some threshold of offensiveness we have to hit to recognize a term is derogatory?

And if your statement is true, why haven't the Cleveland Indians caught flak or had their trademark revoked?

Because white people don't think it's as inflammatory as "redskin", and frankly, the vast majority of NAs couldn't care less what other races think or say and keep to themselves. Most of the time it's a real mystery how they feel about any given matter.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

That doesn't prevent native american groups from protesting, like in the Redskins case.

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Most of the time it's a real mystery how they feel about any given matter.

If only we could ask them.

Because frankly, if it could be shown that the native-americans who object to the name were just a small amount malcontents within their community, I could be easily persuaded to not care in the other direction.

That doesn't prevent native american groups from protesting, like in the Redskins case.

If only we could ask them.

Because frankly, if it could be shown that the native-americans who object to the name were just a small amount malcontents within their community, I could be easily persuaded to not care in the other direction.

In large part, they protest because others decided to stir a few of them up.

You can ask them about anything, one of my lodge buddies is Seminole, but they'll usually shrug without a facial expression and go about their business. I can respect that.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

Florida State Seminoles take into account the feelings of the tribe from which they model their team's image. The university has a close relationship with the Seminole tribe. If the Redskins wanted to honor the people from which they construct their team image, they would listen to and adjust according to the grievances.

Florida State Seminoles take into account the feelings of the tribe from which they model their team's image. The university has a close relationship with the Seminole tribe. If the Redskins wanted to honor the people from which they construct their team image, they would listen to and adjust according to the grievances.

I mean, in some ways I feel like we should preserve the name to show where we came from and how things were, but I just don't think that's reasonable. We all seem to agree the term Redskin was a slur, the disagreement seems to surround whether its really current or a relic of a bygone era, and secondly "how offensive is it really?" On the second point, I think it requires a certain amount of arrogance for us to judge, as most or all of use aren't of native american descent. Another question is, should we change the name if only a small amount of people are offended? I think that again requires a certain amount of arrogance because it implies that it's okay to be offensive, so long as you're not offending a large amount of people. And when you consider the history of treatment we have towards those people...

Well, I just can't object to changing the name, regardless of any personal feelings or lack thereof. And I certainly can't object to the reasoning of the trademark office and I don't think anyone else has here either. So in this case, perhaps the right thing will be done, in the end, for financial reasons (not a boycott, but to help limit merchandising rights).

To add onto this thanks to the new discussion, if a majority of those the Redskins name references are unhappy with the term, and if the team truly believes intends to be trying to honor them, I would think they would come to a compromise on a more acceptable nickname.

The second part makes it a sticky situation, however. Much like the trademark being cancelled.